On June 3, 1991, inmates of the Bannock County Jail in Pocatello, Idaho, representing all present and future inmates, filed a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, against jail and county officials, alleging that the conditions at the ...
read more >

On June 3, 1991, inmates of the Bannock County Jail in Pocatello, Idaho, representing all present and future inmates, filed a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Idaho, against jail and county officials, alleging that the conditions at the jail violated the First, Sixth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments. The inmates were represented by the American Civil Liberties Union. The inmates moved for partial summary judgment on the issues of overcrowding, inadequate staffing, inadequate recreation, inadequate lighting, and inadequate plumbing. On April 15, 1992, the court (Magistrate Judge Mikel H. Williams) certified the class. On May 4, 1992, the court (Magistrate Williams) found that the jail was unconstitutionally overcrowded, and that the lighting and plumbing was unconstitutionally inadequate. Loya v. The Board of County Comm. Of Bannock County, Idaho, No. CV91-216-E-MHW, 1992 WL 176131 (D. Idaho May 4, 1992). The court ordered the defendants to place a maximum population cap on the jail of 40 prisoners, except in emergency situations where an additional 5 prisoners would be allowed for no more than 72 hours. The court also ordered the defendants to obtain a plumbing and electrical report within 30 days and to repair the deficiencies within a short time following the report. Because of the order to decrease the jail population, the court did not determine the constitutionality of the staffing and recreation claims, but rather ordered the defendants to report to the court within 60 days of the decrease in population, whether staffing and recreation facilities would be adequate after the decrease. On December 18, 1992, the court (Magistrate Williams) granted the inmates' motion for additional relief. The court ordered the defendants to complete the hiring process for new staff by March 1, 1993, to establish an indoor recreation area, and to offer all inmates indoor or outdoor recreation for at least one hour per day, six days per week. On June 24, 1993, the court (Magistrate Williams) entered a stipulated order of dismissal of plaintiff's claims with prejudice, subject to the terms of a consent decree (which unfortunately we do not have).